Comparison Overview

American Medical Response

VS

Banner Health

American Medical Response

6363 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, 14th Floor, Greenwood Village, CO, US, 80111
Last Update: 2026-01-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.amr.net

American Medical Response, America’s leading provider of medical transportation, has a single mission: making a difference by caring for people in need. AMR solutions include 911 emergency, interfacility transportation, event medical, advanced & basic life support transports and federal disaster response. AMR is a part of the Global Medical Response family. With nearly 34,000 team members, Global Medical Response teams deliver compassionate, quality medical care, primarily in the areas of emergency and patient relocation services in the United States, the District of Columbia and around the world. GMR was formed by combining the industry leaders in air and ground emergency medical services. Each of our companies have long histories of proudly serving the communities where we live: American Medical Response (AMR), Air Evac Lifeteam, REACH Air Medical Services, Med-Trans Corporation, AirMed International and Guardian Flight. Together, with our GMR family, we are providing care to the world at a moment’s notice.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 10,539
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
View Profile

Banner Health

2901 N Central Ave., Phoenix, 85012, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bannerhealth.com

Headquartered in Arizona, Banner Health is one of the largest nonprofit health care systems in the country. The system owns and operates 33 acute-care hospitals, Banner Health Network, Banner – University Medicine, academic and employed physician groups, long-term care centers, outpatient surgery centers and an array of other services; including Banner Urgent Care, family clinics, home care and hospice services, pharmacies and a nursing registry. Banner Health is in six states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada and Wyoming.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 34,851
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/american-medical-response-1.jpeg
American Medical Response
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
American Medical Response
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Banner Health
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for American Medical Response in 2026.

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Banner Health in 2026.

Incident History — American Medical Response (X = Date, Y = Severity)

American Medical Response cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Banner Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Banner Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/american-medical-response-1.jpeg
American Medical Response
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/banner-health.jpeg
Banner Health
Incidents

FAQ

Banner Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to American Medical Response company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Banner Health company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to American Medical Response company.

In the current year, Banner Health company and American Medical Response company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Banner Health company nor American Medical Response company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

American Medical Response company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Banner Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Banner Health company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while American Medical Response company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither American Medical Response company nor Banner Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither American Medical Response nor Banner Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither American Medical Response company nor Banner Health company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Banner Health company employs more people globally than American Medical Response company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither American Medical Response nor Banner Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither American Medical Response nor Banner Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither American Medical Response nor Banner Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither American Medical Response nor Banner Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither American Medical Response nor Banner Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither American Medical Response nor Banner Health holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
References
Description

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References